Has boxing technique evolved since the 1930?

Yes and No.

Yes, there are more southpaws today. Footwork I think is better since the 30's and I think the jab is a little better too.

No, they fought more back then, and were usually sharper because of it.

 

Here's a sloppy fight from the 90's

This content is protected

 

Lewis v Klitschko as well ...... from the 2000s even.

 

I'm generally of the "standing on the shoulders of giants" school - i e that coming generations learn and progress from what earlier generations have done. So therefore, I'm theoretically inclined to say yes. Also, today film is available in a way it never has been before which makes the opportunity to study other fighters more or less limitless. There's also more money in the sport than at any other point, I think, which means more resources in terms of training.

The theoretical arguments against are primarily that the talent pool is more shallow today due to fewer practitioners and that today's boxers have fewer pro fights. The evidence to support the first point seems inconclusive to me and while the second point is true in general, it is also true that boxers today have more amateur fights in general before turning pro, and furthermore I'm not convinced that a very hectic schedule of pro fights will help you develop your skills optimally since a lot of time between fights will go to recuperation. 2-3 fights a year when you been pro for a time and your leaning curve starts to flatten out, might well be close to optimal imo if the level of opposition is good and you keep up a good and well balanced level of training throughout the year.

So in theory I would say that technique has improved since the 30's. But as for how it looks to me, the eye test, that's a harder question to answer since there are just so many fighters and fights to take into consideration and I have only seen a small, small part of the total. A truly conclusive answer is more or less impossible.

But on balance, from what I've seen, fighters today look more coordinated with better fundamentals to me. That is a very generalised statement though, since even in the modern era we have successful fighters that flouted fundamentals (Nunn, RJJ, Naz, Martinez to name some) and also those that did/do so without looking very coordinated (Froch, Vitaly and Wilder immediately comes to mind).

This is my general take on it, but I don't claim it as an absolute truth, only the way I see it.

 

Lol fighters from that era threw better punchers? Yeah you are one of these old senile guys who still believes everything from your era was better than the current. Fighters from the 30s and before threw wild looping arm punches. Their footwork was primitive. Even a amateur boxer with a few fighters has more skill than any fighter from that era.

 

This content is protected

There is a video of Gene Tunney who was suppose to be skilled from his era. If you actually think Gene Tunney is remotely skilled compared to modern fighters then something is wrong with you. I can tell that most of the people who post in the Classic section of this forum are old men who still live in their little fantasy world were everything from back in the day was better than what is modern. The same little old men who believe a 170 pound guy like Gene Tunney could beat George Foreman. They still believe 150 pound guys like Harry Greb could beat Lennox Lewis and they still believe 180 pound guys like Rocky Marciano could beat Mike Tyson. The General Forum is basically a bunch of younger fans who only watch current boxing and think whatever you see now is better than what you seen in lets say the 70's 80's and 90's. So two different groups of casual fans.

But anyway back to the question at hand . Here is a video of Jack Johnson. Another guy who was considered skilled.

This content is protected

I would go so far to say CM Punk/Phil Brooks has better technique with this punches. This is just pathetic. The skill level was so primitive that you can barely call it boxing.

 

Lewis looks good I think. Grant doesn't, but then he doesn't last the first round either.

 

This is bait.

 

I love the Lennox Lewis textbook uppercut : hold the opponent's head still with the left and deliver the coup de grace with the right !
Ouch.

To be fair, Grant DID last the first round. He was never going to make it through the second though.

 

Lewis was a wily one in there, definitely. Hard to reach that level of success without having your dirty tricks.

I remembered it as first round KO, so stopped watching this time after the last KD in the first, but he did actually get up after that one! He obviously was strong as an ox, Grant, but didn't have much else, going by that fight. Lewis's composure was definitely the difference between the two men.

 

Everyone take note: this is exactly how a speculative comment should be written.

 

Yes, look at these wild arm punches from the bums Joe Louis and Max Schmeling.

This content is protected

Idiot.

 

Indeed. The post builds a solid case off logical points, without claiming absolute confidence in the findings, has a counter thesis and not once in the entire body of text slings a single insult towards those who would disagree.